Idealism is false since it cannot explain coherence in the ideas that we perceive. Physicalism also is false since it cannot explain mental phenomena and the correlation between mental phenomena and physical ones.

I would brand this way of seeing the world and perception as Ideal Realism. It sounds a contradictory name in its meaning, but it is what it is.

I am not sure if there were any other folks who thought about this aspect of worldview before. — Corvus

I would call that way of seeing the world "metaphysics." All the isms in philosophy have the same characteristic you identify - they all "depend on how the perceiver and the world are interacting." You use different approaches, different metaphysical perspectives, depending on what you're doing. This way of seeing things comes under the general heading of pragmatism.

Idealism is false since it cannot explain coherence in the ideas that we perceive. Physicalism also is false since it cannot explain mental phenomena and the correlation between mental phenomena and physical ones. — MoK

But when I think of a tree, it is just a image and some qualities of the tree in the mind. It is a concept. When I go out to the garden, and touch the tree trunk or branches, it is physical matter. In both occasions of my engagement of the interaction with the tree, I get different knowledge and perceptual experience from the tree.

So why do you think idealism is false and also physicalism is false? Isn't the case that what type of level of experience and interactions you have with the object, and also availability of data, which either can give you knowledge or not? In that sense aren't both way of seeing the world true?

This way of seeing things comes under the general heading of pragmatism. — T Clark

Yes, good point. :up:

Ok, first idealism. As I said idealism is false because it cannot explain the coherence in the reality that we perceive. Let me give you one example: Let's assume that you now put the cup of coffee that you just sipped from on the table. If you want to drink more coffee you know where the cup is, you get it and drink from it. For example, the cup of coffee just does not disappear. It is where you left it. You then approach it with your hand and grab its handle with your fingers. Move it toward your mouth and drink more coffee as you please. So we are dealing with a set of ideas, what we perceive, but there is a coherence between them. Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. I have more examples but this one is sufficient to deny idealism.

And now, physicalism. Physicalism looks correct at first look since things are lawful within physicalism. So for example the cup of coffee is where you left it since reality is lawful. That, lawfulness, is however its weakness as well as I illustrate later. The first issue that physicalism suffers from is the existence of experience. Experience cannot be denied yet it cannot be explained in physicalism. The second issue is related to the correlation between mental and physical. For example, when you decide to have more coffee your hand moves appropriately. You then grab the handle of the cup with your finger, then move it toward your mouth, and drink as much as coffee you please. So we see fantastic correlations between mental and physical all the time. The problem is if physicals are lawful then they move according to the laws of physics. There is however no room left for mental to intervene since accepting that mental has a causal power leads to overdetermination which is not acceptable. So you have to choose, either mental has no causal power which means that you cannot explain the fantastic correlation between mental and physical, or mental has causal power which is contrary because overdetermination is not acceptable.

Slightly different names, slightly different primary ideas, but pretty much a familiar philosophy to some.

So yeah, there’s at least one “other folk(..) who thought about this aspect of worldview before.

When the perceiver is only thinking about the world without direct visual or material sensation or perception, the world is in the mind of the perceiver as ideas only. — Corvus

‘Naive realism’ is the philosophical attitude that things just are as they appear, and there is no question to solve about the relationship between reality and appearance.

Although it’s not as common an expression, ‘naive idealism’ is the view that idealists believe that the world is simply a figment of the individual mind, or what goes on inside a conscious mind.

I think your post presents a pretty naive version of both materialism and idealism. Serious philosophers in both schools have long grappled with the conundrums of mind and matter, or matter and form.

Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. — MoK

And that is a naive depiction of idealism. No idealist philosophy of record will claim that ‘the world is all in the mind’ as you are claiming. If you want to illustrate the point you’re attempting to make, you’ll need to back it up with some citations from recognised idealist philosophy which say what you’re claiming it says.

‘Naive realism’ is the philosophical attitude that things just are as they appear, and there is no question to solve about the relationship between reality and appearance.

Although it’s not as common an expression, ‘naive idealism’ is the view that idealists believe that the world is simply a figment of the individual mind, or what goes on inside a conscious mind.

I think your post presents a pretty naive version of both materialism and idealism. Serious philosophers in both schools have long grappled with the conundrums of mind and matter, or matter and form. — Wayfarer

But if you divide the world into reality and representation, then you are back in the old dualistic view of the world. We have been on that road before.

You end up having 2x copies of every object in your perception, and wonder which one is the real object.   If you say the physical tree is the real tree, then you are back to denying the representation being a plain physicalist. If you say the representation is the real object, then you are back to the idealist. And there is always the mysterious thing-in-itself lurking behind all the objects you perceive without revealing what they really are.

Here we are suggesting, well why not leap out from the old well, and see the world from the real experiential point of view.

If you are thinking about the tree, then you are only having an idea of the tree.  If you go out, and see the tree in front of you feeling and confirm the physical tree, then you have the physical tree as well as the sensation and ideas of the tree. The reality is in your living experience interacting and accessing the objects, not just in the objects themselves.

So yeah, there’s at least one “other folk(..) who thought about this aspect of worldview before. — Mww

Who would it be?

As I said idealism is false because it cannot explain the coherence in the reality that we perceive. — MoK

Idealism cannot explain the coherence in reality therefore it is false. I have more examples but this one is sufficient to deny idealism. — MoK

Idealism is not about explaining the coherence in the reality. It is about how we see the reality.

But if you divide the world into reality and representation, then you are back in the old dualistic view of the world. We have been on that road before. — Corvus

Have you been on that road before, or are you relying on a second-hand accounts?

If you go out, and see the tree in front of you feeling and confirm the physical tree, then you have the physical tree as well as the sensation and ideas of the tree. — Corvus

You think philosophers don't recognise this?

You need to do some homework on what idealist philosophy actually is. The Brittanica has a decent introductory article on it. It's not nearly so naive as you're making it out to be.

Have you been on that road before, or are you relying on a second-hand accounts? — Wayfarer

We have seen the arguments on the dualism all the time, haven't we?

You need to do some homework on what idealist philosophy actually is. The Brittanica has a decent introductory article on it. It's not nearly so naive as you're making it out to be. — Wayfarer

Idealism could be a broad topic, but here I am talking under most brief and general concept of idealism for the argument bearing in mind that idealism itself is not the main topic.

What do you think the actual idealism is? What is your account for non-naive idealism?

What do you think the actual idealism is? What is your account for non-naive idealism? — Corvus

Explained in the OP The Mind Created World. Not that I'm wanting to hijack your thread, but I also don't want to try and explain it all again here.

If I had to explain it in a sentence or two, it would be that the world (object) always exists for an observer. That while we can know what the world would be like as if there were no observer, the observer is still the basis of that imaginative act. That this doesn't mean that the world doesn't exist without an observer, as existence and non-existence are conceptual constructions.

If I had to explain it in a sentence or two, it would be that the world (object) always exists for an observer. — Wayfarer

The OP wasn't denying the existence of the world. The OP was about the way we see the world. Both representation and matter are real depending on what type of experience and perception the observer has with the world.

When we perceive the physical objects in front of us, and when the objects are available to our senses, also backed by our ideas on them, they are real. When they are not available to our senses, but when we think, remember or imagine about them, the physicals fade away from our perception, and they become ideas in our minds.

Fair enough. A thing and the idea of a thing are separate, in that sense.

Fair enough. A thing and the idea of a thing are separate, in that sense. — Wayfarer

Of course they are, but we know which one is real. To perceive the real Lady Gaga, you must go to her live concert. What you listen to, and watch on youtube is virtual real, not the real.

Nothing of what you're saying here rises to the level of philosophical analysis.

You seem to be trying hard to make things unnecessarily complicated. Talking about the existence of the world when observer is not present is not relevant to the point as well.

Explained in the OP The Mind Created World. Not that I'm wanting to hijack your thread, but I also don't want to try and explain it all again here. — Wayfarer

I recall your OP you mentioned above. The OP could be written in 3 sentences, and perhaps needed 2-3 pages of postings. Instead the OP read like a novel, and it was filled with the over 2k irrelevant postings for ages. What was the conclusion in the end?

Ideas unfold in the world. When we think of an idea transmitted by language for example. Since there is a relation to signifiers the idea itself becomes a signifier within a chain of referral. It is necessary to explain how the idea is related to sound, the extension of language and the relation of representation (for example the relation to pixels on a screen). This explanation can only be carried out if the idea and its representation are part of the same system of signs. This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc....

This explanation can only be carried out if the idea and its representation are part of the same system of signs. This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

I think this is a very interesting point. Here we are not just simply talking about idealism and materialism, but the nature and scope of ideas and realities too. I will read over your post a few times, and let it sink in me before returning with my points. Later~

And that is a naive depiction of idealism. No idealist philosophy of record will claim that ‘the world is all in the mind’ as you are claiming. — Wayfarer

According to SEP, there are two main forms of idealism, namely ontological and epistemological, wherein the reality is merely mental in the former whereas in the latter the existence of mind-independent things is accepted. I am arguing against ontological idealism here only since otherwise we are dealing with a form of substance dualism once you accept mind-independent things as well as the mind.

If you want to illustrate the point you’re attempting to make, you’ll need to back it up with some citations from recognised idealist philosophy which say what you’re claiming it says. — Wayfarer

My knowledge of idealism is limited to what I read from SEP and Wiki a while ago. To the best of my knowledge, the coherence in reality is not discussed in any form of idealism. I would be happy to know if you can cite a form of idealism that discusses coherence in reality.

Idealism is not about explaining the coherence in the reality. It is about how we see the reality. — Corvus

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality.

This implies that the idea is not enclosed in the head but that literally the world is made of ideas unfolding, our world, but the idea is something necessarily material, if by material we understand the finiteness of the sign, its appearance, its action and reaction, its contact, its causality, its transformation, its difference, etc.... — JuanZu

Ideas manifest when we materialize our ideas into physical entities.  But ideas themselves are not matter.

This morning I was thinking about whether to drink coffee or tea.  The coffee or tea was ideas in my mind.  When I decided to have coffee, and made coffee, the idea of coffee manifested into matter.   When I drank the coffee, it was a real experience of coffee in a form of matter.

Likewise matter can be idealised when perceived.  Before perception, there is no matter, and no existence.  When we perceive an object, it is perceived as matter.  When we remember it, or think about it in our mind, it is an idea of the matter.

Matter is not ideas, and ideas are not matter.   Between the two states of existence, experience and perception are needed for the transformation. Idea is not just a copy of matter, and matter is not just physical existence on its own.

For that process, we need our perception and the body with working brain to carry out the perceptual process or experience. Could it be a phenomenological view? I need to read some Husserl, Heidegger and Merlou Ponty, if their ideas were in line with the OP.

I am saying that idealism should not be accepted as a correct metaphysical theory if it cannot explain the coherence in reality. — MoK

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. Idealism is a way to view to the world. It is your reasoning to tell if the idea you have is correct or not. Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world.

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. The world doesn't tell you if it is correct or not. It is your thought which does that.

A raw idea doesn't have coherence attached to it. You need to analyse the idea with your reasoning process to come to the judgement on coherence or not.

I am not sure to say that idealism is not correct is a correct statement. — Corvus

Why not? Does idealism explain coherence in reality?

Ideas are just copy of the objects in the world. — Corvus

What do you mean by this?

Of course, it wouldn't be able to tell you whether they are correct or not. You need your own thinking process, observations, confirmations and logical affirmation to be able to say your ideas were correct or not. — Corvus

I already argued against idealism.

What do you mean by this? — MoK

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. To know the idea is correct or not, you must check if it has all the correct qualities for a tree. The checking process is from your reasoning, not a work from the idea.

I already argued against idealism. — MoK

You seem to be confused in the difference between idea and reasoning.

If you have an idea of tree, then the idea itself cannot tell you it is correct or not. It only gives an image of tree. — Corvus

What do you mean by correct here? If you have an idea of a tree then that is just an idea.

You seem to confusing between idea and reasoning. — Corvus

Not at all. The reasoning is based on working on the ideas.